Paul

I agree with Mary. For "the egos" into photo.net as a blood sport choose your targets more carefully. Going at one another is fine - it's great entertainment. But be more thoughtful and constructive (which you have all proved capable of being) when dealing with other hapless recipients of the pow award.

 

The debate between digital and film technology is a little silly. Photography has always been about technological manipulation. The most radical manipulation has been the conversion of a colorful reality into black & white. It amazes me that Tony is incensed by pure black as opposed to noisy black but sees nothing wrong in throwing out the entire color spectrum to achieve his photographic aims. Reality is manipulated each time we choose a lens, film, filter, shutter speed and f-stop. We crop reality both before and after shooting. Then we burn and dodge. Photoshop is a logical extension of every other method we have devised to change reality into our own special vision.

 

Peter, it is an excellent photo. The ratings and comments of a couple hundred people serious about photography show that.

 

PS: Robert Brown's adjustment of the rating system (supplemented by Morwen's 50 shot limit) is super. With all the people I've tried it on it seems to reflects my feelings about the relative merits of different photographers. (Tony and Ian are on top, of course)

Sorry to wade in on this one late, but perhaps my thoughts will get lost in the shuffle. Safer that way, no?

 

As a POW, this picture has clearly done its job: we've got discussion on digital vs. film, in-camera composition vs. cropping, photoshopped "darkroom" effects, plus the standard attempts-to-improve-the-picture, ego-laden diatribes (I do not direct this at any one in particular), and some good old-fashioned worship of the picture. Pretty good choice. Unfortunate that we don't have the photographer in the discussion, but I'll assume there's a good enough reason and leave it at that.

 

First off, and at the risk of sacrificing any future respect from people on this site whose work and opinions I generally respect, I like the image. [it *is* an image, regardless of how it's created; if I can be forgiven for the moment, I'd like to put aside the semantic question of whether or not it is "photography."] It's graphically strong, and compositionally interesting. My chief complaint about the image is the soft focus on the face, which becomes more noticeable in larger sizes.

 

The picture is an interesting study in the immediate recognizability of familiar items. As humans, we are oriented to recognizing the human form, particularly faces, and especially eyes. I think that's why many people feel this is a portraiture failure: we do not connect well emotionally with subjects whose eyes we do not see. [No judgment there, nor am I saying the people who feel that way about the picture are wrong.]

 

I don't like the image as much in b&w, because I like the color of the hat. [i'm not saying whether I like the hat as a fashion item, Vuk.] I will say that the hat is more compelling than the face, detracting from the portraiture value. However, I find the hat still to distract from the face in the b&w version.

 

Now we get onto other stuff. I said it's compositionally interesting - why? Because I think "breaking the rules" and placing the face where it is, facing out of the frame, ultimately creates more tension in the image. Placed there, the figure is not at rest.

 

Tony (who's work I very much admire) has pointed out the 'infinite canvas' created by the digital blackness. A fair point, but my question is whether this is a crop down from the original image size or if, in fact, compositional space has been added. Adjusting the levels of the picture and/or digitally burning and dodging, even to the point of creating a bunch of 0,0,0 values, doesn't necessarily bug me. After all, restoring contrast, even heightening contrast, has always been a major goal of darkroom work.

 

[Aside on that: been thinking about that a lot as I read through the Ansel Adams at 100 exhibition book. Adams' signature Moonrise prints samples show how Adams burned in the sky so as to erase the presence of several light clouds that he felt would be a distraction, especially in the later, more "operatic" (curator's term) prints. See the online exhibit at sfmoma.com for details if you're interested.]

 

Ok, I know that raises a lot of questions and counter-arguments. On the screen, the background blacks in Mike Spinak's passiflora tendril and the digital black here both appear to be deep black, but we know that isn't the whole truth of it because of the measurements taken, nor would they necessarily appear the same in an exhibition print. We also don't know whether any space *outside the original photographic frame* was added, or if the image is cropped out of the regular shape. The first alternative would bother me. I wouldn't discount the image from consideration for commercial use, but I would certainly evaluate it in a different light (bad pun intended).

 

[Ok, Marshall, come in for a landing here...]

 

Bottom line on the picture: striking at first glance, an exersize in lighting and composition. Flawed by soft focus on the face and distraction (if portraiture is really the intent). No real emotional connection but not bad otherwise. Can't rate the originality - certainly the Country CD cover above shows this isn't the first time a picture like this has been taken.

 

As for the rest, some of the debate is silly, some of the comments are insightful and enjoyable to read. For my opinion, Tony's got a point, though he may be too harsh on some of what he calls Universe 1. [Perhaps after interacting more with Tony, he'll help me figure out a universe to join.]

 

Note to Kyle: the inside the picture vs. outside the picture debate is a miss. Choosing a frame around a picture is an artistic choice, but it is in no way the same as changing the image itself. The frame is part of the jpeg, but *not* part of the photograph.

 

Wish I had time to respond to all the pithy and interesting comments, or just some of the ones that made me think (which is what this is all about). Besides which, this is so long already I'd be pretty surprised if anyone's still reading. Gotta work on brevity...

 

Enjoy.

Marshal, I appreciate your opinion on what you consider to be part of the picture and what isnt. However that is your opinion and not mine.

 

Peter has framed his point of interest with black pixels while Tony did the exact same thing with white pixels. I dont see any difference. The color, proportions, and dimensions of each are equally arbitrary and determined by the artist. I guess the term I am looking for is Matting.

Peter, it is an excellent photo. The ratings and comments of a couple hundred people serious about photography show that.

Up to here I agreed with every word. In point of fact the grades of "a couple of hundred people serious about photography" would in and of themselves show nothing of the kind; moreover there is no such tabulation extant on this server.

Do the math, please. A cursory count of heads around here would lead one to realize your figures intersect reality at no point. What I hear is exaggeration, hyperbole, something flat out wrong. (As I write this there have been 148 grades assigned, and more than a few of those have been in the middle range, with the occasional miserly score given out by others.)

PS: Robert Brown's adjustment of the rating system (supplemented by Morwen's 50 shot limit) is super. With all the people I've tried it on it seems to reflects my feelings about the relative merits of different photographers. (Tony and Ian are on top, of course)

At this juncture Mr. Brown and I part company. The ratings are a menace to photographic instruction of any but the wrong kind. Bob impresses me as a sober fellow, but what we need is not a reworking of these grades but their abolition. These arbitrary assignments say absolutely nothing which might not be better articulated with well-constructed comment. Indeed, these things lead most often only to the sort of convoluted discussions we find here right now, where those who profess not to be concerned with the ratings manage to weave a discussion of those same ratings into POW threads anyway, with the basic argument running that the very concept of grades has merit.

But it gets worse. Ratings make it easy for those not of thoughtful natures to assign idiotic scores--for example, a 1-1 if you don't "like" someone or don't "like" a picture's theme, and a 10-10 for anything that gets your rocks off for a moment. Or for a friend. And don't even get me going about the people who rate their own. (There was a top-10 guy who did just that not so long ago and I left comments on his photos to lodge my protest. These comments were subsequently removed, likely due to protest from the photographer, though I can't be sure of that.) These marks are then looked upon by the community at large as being not only a collective de facto indicator of how the public judges all things art (in and of itself not entirely unreasonable) but as an actual indication of how one piece stacks up against another in terms of its "value."

Grades here are about as useful as grades in school. Grades are for foolish people. Grades have nothing whatsoever to do about art.

Marshall, may I say that was brilliantly and eloquently put and your comments about the image pretty much sum up my own views.

While I am surprised at how ... erm... enthusiastically Tony has waded in on the issue of possible digital manipulation of this image, I have to say that I too would be troubled if the black breathing space behind the subject was the result of digital editing. Not because I think it detracts from the image and not because I have anything against the digital medium per se, but because it has been selected - through no fault of Peter's - as Photograph of the Week. As such, the piece should remain within the admittedly fuzzy boundary between photography and digital art. [My own definition for what it's worth - and I'm sure there would be many who agree - would be that anything more than cropping, unsharp masking, levels and/or color correction, etc to match the original print or transparency is pushing, if not transgressing, the boundary.]

If it was the stated aim of POW to choose an image that would promote discussion and heated debate, then we could have little complaint with a good many of the recent picks. However, the stated (and narrow!) aim is to present "a fine example of a good composition" - see the About POW page.

Whether "Paul" is an example of "good composition" is up to us to debate at length on this forum. But, and this is what Tony is driving at, if the final composition is the result of digital manipulation to create totally flat negative space to support the compositional choice, it could be argued that the image does not qualify for the accolade of Photograph of the Week.

And this is the crux of the issue: this image is a striking one as it stands, but while the forum is entitled "Photograph of the Week" (as opposed to "image" or "artistic creation" of the week), we should be able to reasonably expect a piece of exceptional quality that stays within the above-described boundaries and ethics and qualifies as a photograph in the traditional sense.

And on a final note: Kyle, I'm puzzled by your persistence with the argument with Tony over framing and borders.

You say: "Peter has framed his point of interest with black pixels while Tony did the exact same thing with white pixels. I dont see any difference."

There is a world of difference. Taking Tony's photograph of his father, he has surrounded the subject for the compostion with the white of the wall behind him and then framed the photograph as an entity with a white border. The photograph and the presentation of the photograph are entirely separate for the purposes of this argument.

"I guess the term I am looking for is Matting."

I don't think it is. Peter has used no discernible method of framing or "faux-matting" on this POW image. The black space is part of the photograph, whereas Tony's white borders clearly are not.

For Kyle -

 

Let me say first that I also respect your right to hold to your opinion.

 

So, more on my opinion, I guess:

I think you're right that we're talking about matting, but in a bit of a twisted way. [My opinion is that this isn't really matting as presented in the original picture, which I think coincides with Lyndon's point.] Invoking the physical world, though, a deep black matte around a picture with deep black edges would still appear to be separate from the image.

 

I'm a little nervous about doing this (I hate to play with people's pictures), but Kyle, what do you think of a rework that would show where the matte begins (almost like a standard matte-with-colored-edge job)? Disclaimer: I really don't know if there are pixels added, and this is a total SWAG at where they might fall, nor do I really have any right to play with Peter's picture.

Thanks for the comments on the comment. I really appreciate them. Enjoy.

Does anyone know whats on the "Vuk & Tony Show" next week? I cant find my guide and I dont want to miss a beat of their ratings driven ego essays.

Forgive me Peter for going off subject but since Tris made a comment that needs to be addressed so people won't think it happens - I must... Tris, no - no one can remove your comment...Photo net administration would not either! Only if someone really does something bad like when a member assumed Phil Greenspans name - will they do anything like that. If there is a problem...they will talk to you first. Now, usually the abusers delete the whole image and resubmit it - so that is possibility #1 Perhaps it was a glitch - or when you hit confirm..you disconnected or something... Please try again...I applaud you for it...and those people that will leave honest comments or confront self raters! It takes a bit of courage because as we know----they come after us for it and our ratings go down. I went from #38 down to 180 and I'm proud of it! [see Vuk - I'm not always so nice - just ask a few list abusers/favor raters/self raters and they'll tell you]

ratings driven--Mike C

Mike.

I can certainly accept criticism, but not when it's completely unfounded. I think the ratings are laughable and what I write on Photonet has nothing to do with them. If I wanted high scores on my photos (which I post here on a temporary basis primarily to share with friends), I would leave only positive comments and try really hard not to piss anyone off. Does that seem to be what I'm doing?

Kudos to Marshall Goff and his recent post: clear and reasonably concise commentary on the photo.

 

Tris: while I think your feelings about the ratings system are not totally unfounded (any computer ratings system is bound to be abused, and as you've said, rating "art" seems to trivialize the whole process, turns the process into a swimsuit contest), ratings do help guide photo.net users to relatively high quality photos. If the system were tweaked some, I think it would be more useful to that end.

 

And to Mike C.: I doubt Tony or Vuk would agree with your comments about ratings. Each of their posts, which for the most part are quite valid, have done nothing but to lower their ratings.

 

Peter: I'd like to hear how you set the shot up, and what was done in the computer. I still feel it's a fine graphic image. I tried doing a shot like this today with little success (which is probably a testament to my lack of both traditional photographic and photoshop skills. I plan to try it again this weekend.

 

 

 

As Nigel Tufnell once said:

 

I think he's right, there is something about this, that's that's so black, it's like; "How much more black could this be?" and the answer is: "None, none... more black."

Referring to your response to my post, I'm sorry, I seem to have accidently struck a nerve. I'm not sure I understand the particulars of your argument but the drift seems to be that you don't like the ratings system.

 

I submit my photos to photo.net because I want to know what other photographers think, thereby to learn to improve and, of course, to be appreciated. The comments are great but they are also a very inefficient means of finding that out. Most comments given to the photos tend toward the "great photo" variety, which are really appreciated but leave me asking, compared to what? . Even the critical comments tend to be of the I-would-have-cropped-it-like-this variety, which are instructive but may just be the subjective quirk of one person and tell me nothing beyond that one photo. This page is a good example to show how poor and inefficient comments are as a means of instruction - how, at the end of the day, will all this contradictory blather help Peter improve his photographic skills? The ratings are a simple method to let me know what other photographers think, encouraging me to compare my own photos to each other and to the work of others. I don't take the numbers as absolutes and I must factor in all the failings of the system when I look at the numbers (which is why I think Robert's system is a vast improvement) but the numbers still have a lot to tell me.

 

Also, to say that grades have nothing to do with art is a bit ingenuous. Ultimately the art that survives does so because it's been given good grades. The rest, thankfully, has been hauled off to the dust bin.

Wow,what a great week, and Tris hasn't even been center stage. ;)

1. I feel this is a well executed image. It is not a portrait in the style of Ian M or Tony D but it captures the essence and character of a person. It evoked strong emotion before being blessed/cursed with POW and still does. Is it a photo? I believe the key elements remain unchanged enough to qualify. Stretching or cropping a background is not a sin in my book. Does it deserve the ratings accolades it has received? See my comment on ratings below.
2. Those of you who pay a little more attention to what goes on here rather just dropping in for the weekly gong show may recall Peter posting this image for review a while back. As I recall the lighting is from a window and he was curious if the photo was more effective with or without the window in the frame.

3. My opinion to the various arguments/opinions on photo manipulation.

   a)Method doesn't matter - choose the medium that makes you the happiest and run with it. Don't whine like a five year old when someone with newer technology makes a better image. Chances are it has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with skill and vision.

   b)On that note... to each and everyone of you that voiced some moronic sentiment that this image is lessened because it was taken with a digital camera please add my fingertip to the one Paul offered earlier :)

   c)On Post Camera image manipulation. I do agree with what many have voiced that there is a limit to what we should modify before what you have is art but not a photo. This is a photography community and I see little value to CGI images and other eye candy being posted here, except potentially serving as an ego boost since they typically collect high ratings (go figure)

4. Ratings: ratings are essentially a joke and an absolute ego trap. Brian M's top photos list is tres cool, when I have time (when I'm not busy trying to bribe my way into the top 10 list) I'll put one together.
5. and lastly... what's the deal with all the hat hate?? Some of you need to get outside and take more photos. You might find a good hat is a truly useful photo accessory!

   PS For those of you who are a little slow there may be humor and/or sarcasm in the above post. Please react accordingly.

   

Ian - I can't remember ever seeing you post here...correct me if I'm wrong - as I may have just missed it...In any case I found your comments to be refreshing... The hat...well, I guess it is one of those personal things and we shouldn't bash people for not liking a hat.. I like your hat and I like Paul's too!;-) Re: Peter......a little bird told me we will hear from him soon..and there are valid reasons we have not hear from him yet... We are in for a response and personally I don't know what and I can't wait to hear...

Thanks Mary, no I haven't really participated in the weekly debate before. I've left it up to Ian MacEachern and Vuk to keep the level of Canadian Content up. Seeing as Vuk definitely doesn't seem to like the hat (although I suspect Vuk may like lipstick) and I mistakenly believed Mr. MacEachern to be a hat hater (see next comment) I thought I had would step in for a few words.

Just to add a couple more thoughts....

Although I don't consider cropping, digital darkroom work etc to be "wrong". I don't usually value an image that has required substantial amounts of post capture work (whether it is mine or someone else's) as much as something that was photographed right the first time.

Often the time I spend rescuing a photo is a lesson in what I must do to get it right the next time.

The key skill we all practice is photography.. with a camera. All other processes are dependent on our capturing the intended image. Those who choose to spend the bulk of their time on post capture modifications will become better graphic artists or darkroom technicians.. Those who spend their time behind the camera will (hopefully) become better photographers.

Those of us who spend all our time flaming each other here will get fat a**es and sore necks but will be really fast with our fingertips.

nuff said.

Vuks own words from a previous diatribe. Isnt it funny how ones own words can come back to bite them in the ass?? This childishness is such fun isnt it?

 

Mary.

You're being way too nice and sensible. Remember that commercial in which John McEnroe tries to teach Pete Sampras how to slam his racket to the ground and yell at the umpires? Maybe you and I need a little session like that ;-)

 

-- Vuk Vuksanovic

Are you drunk, ignorant, belligerent or illiterate?

 

-- Vuk Vuksanovic

 

 

I feel bad for the poor person or Klingon who is unlucky enough to be selected for the top spot next week time to sharpen your tongues and let the vitriol begin. Let the venom flow. Notice to all warriors: Prepare to attack! Pick up your slings and arrows and take careful aim at the Top spot. Its time to shed some more pixels on the Image battlefield! Full speed ahead take no prisoners! God save the Queen! Remember the Maine (it was a ship). Remember the Alamo (it wasnt a car rental company).

 

Im getting excited for the next Battle-Royale. You folks are the bestin fact I think youre my new best friends! Thanks so much for teaching me the ropes. You guys are great!!

 

I contributed 3 (THREE) words to the gabble here, and out of that you get somehow that I don't like hats! Now that is an amazing leap.

 

Please do explain your great deductive powers to me, and maybe to anyone else who may (or may not) care to understand.

scroll, scroll, scroll.... by Jeeves you're right! I was so busy amusing myself with my own wit (or lack thereof) that I mistakenly lumped you in there with the detractors from the hat. Not that it was anything to get wound up over, I personally thought you and Vuk would get a chuckle out of it and the Canadian content comment. Pardon me if I misjudged your sense of humor.

I'll edit the previous comment so no future readers possibly mistake you for a hat hater. (whether you are or not has not been identified but we wouldn't want your ratings to be prejudiced on that basis ;)

I think Peter is dead...After (and only after) people die, their artworks become invaluable. Case in point: Almost 200 arguments/discussions over a single piece of art. All awaiting an explanation from Peter. Would there have been so much heated discussion if Peter had enlightened us in the, say, 10th thread?

 

This photo is now selected POW...

Almost 200 comments...

Bunch of followers...

Stuff that dreams are made of...

I declare! Peter must be dead!

Long live Peter (The Great)!!!

I decided to post my hatchet job of what Peter did. As an intuitive Photoshop user (one who's too lazy to read the guidebooks or attend a classes), this is my 10-minute rendition. I'm sure someone who knows what they're doing could have made this look halfway decent. For this I shot a quick, handheld digital photo on manual. My face was illuminated by a single 60-watt bulb desk lamp (yes, very low tech lighting), no flash. Then I brutalized this in Photoshop with lots of curves and color fills and dodging and burning and a little of unmentionable this and that. I'd have done some layers and masks but I'll leave that for another day.

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=505444&size=sm

 

This is my well-worn Nike hat--it's an old friend--so please don't critique the hat. I'd like to see what more digitally adept folks might do on the fly imitating this portraiture technique.

 

I am genuinely interested in how this photo was done. It would be nice to hear from Peter, or anyone else who could run through the steps of how to do this well with Photoshop.

 

P.S. Paul's whiskers work really well for this.

 

Superb use of light, perfectly metered for the desired effect, and interesting subject matter. Only problem I have with it is the cropping. I would like to see more space in front of the subject in the direction the subject is looking. That large black void behind the sebject's face is wasted space and would be better served in front.

Did I post that? I thought I was just thinking it. I most have been in the troll mood.

A superbly-done portrait with dramatic lighting. It would not work as well in black and white. The only improvement I could suggest would be to reduce the amount of negative space in the image to enlarge the subject, while keeping the overall placement.

Rather than post yet another "Photoshop This Picture" a la fark, I've been thinking about photo.net's database and some of the obvious problems with the "rating" system. Here are a few thoughts.

BTW, are those the original colors? I think the framing is okay, it implies the unseen mass of the head -- but the shot still seems rather lacking in the personality department, to say nothing of the fact that if I met this person, I doubt I'd recognize him even after seeing this pic quite a bit. That doesn't make the shot faulty, but it does make me confused about the p.n staff's definition of it as a paragon of portraiture.